December 11, 2007

"More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws."

National Review endorses Mitt Romney:
His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.

58 comments:

Stephen said...

The only improvement I see is that he purportedly demands performance from his subordinates. His obnoxious morality, bellicose foreign policy and his unwillingness to recognize the role of government in improving our society are the same nonsense that has alienated the world, stuck the government's nose in our personal business and made our society more a matter of winners and losers than a community.

When you add his inability to separate church from state, you have a real reactionary.

Joe said...

I am completely baffled how they concluded he was "less inclined to federal activism." It has been my observation that politicians who increase the power of state as governors will be prone to do the same as president.

Scrutineer said...

Baseball Crank makes the conservative case against Romney. Even if you don't want to read it, it's worth clicking through for the "Fudge" pic near the bottom.

reader_iam said...

A winning combination, by our lights.

That, and K-Lo's had the salivating hots for Romney's "total package" forever.

joe said...

Fooey. He's no Rudy.

Trooper York said...

K-Lo's seen his package? Just how tight are those temple garments?

Joshua said...

I'm sure this will boost Mitt's standing amongst National Review subscribers. All eight of them.

joewxman said...

Sorry folks. I can't vote for Mr Romney. You have to draw the line somewhere.

http://beofish.blogspot.com/2007/12/real-trouble-with-mitt-romney.html

ricpic said...

Look! there in the sky. Able to hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time. Able to make one hundred and eighty degree course corrections in mid stride. Able to say one thing and do another without the blink of his eagle eye. Mighty of arm, square of jaw, noble of brow. It's SuperMitt!

Trooper York said...

Bystander: Who is that on the podium about to give a speech? He sure is a natty dresser and has a great haircut.
Reporter: That’s Prince Namor the Sub-Mariner. He is a Merman.
Bystander: What’s that?
Reporter: It’s a strange and mysterious group of people who have been living in isolation and are not trying to fully integrate in society. Now Namor is running for President.
K-Lo: I must say look at his Speedo. Nice package.
(Prince Namor the Sub-Mariner comics, 2007)

Cocaine Princess said...

Hello,

I came across your blog and I have a question to ask you that I hope you don't mind answering. Is it illegal or unethical or both for a lawyer to ask out a client on a date?
XOXOXOXO,
Cocaine Princess

save_the_rustbelt said...

Replace William F. Buckley with Jonah Goldberg?

Who cares what NRO thinks?

Trooper York said...

Bystander: But does anyone know anything about these Merman?
Reporter: Well we do know that they are very conservative. They don’t like the Mole people very much. And they do a lot of missionary work to get people to live they way they do.
Bystander: How do they live?
Reporter: Well we think the live under the sea.
Bystander: Like Sponge Bob? That sounds kind of fishy to me.
K-Lo: I don’t know I think it sounds kind of dishy to me!
Bystander with 2 rare clumbers: Me too!
(Prince Namor the Sub-Mariner comics, 2007)

rcocean said...

I was thinking about voting for Matt, but now that NRO supports him I'll have to reconsider my position.

Why not Hunter or Thompson? Too conservative?

I'm just amazed they didn't endorse Hillary.

George said...

Not surprising, considering that Bush Senior introduced Romney's recent religion speech.

Problem is...who can identify with Romney, the millionaire Mormon?

What we need is a six foot six high school star athlete, class clown, motel night clerk, crusading lawyer, and movie star whose tax reform policy is praised by the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal...Hmmm. If only that person existed....

Tall man always wins the race....

reader_iam said...

Trooper: You need to work in, somehow, a reference to Duran Duran--maybe "Hungry Like A Wolf?"--to even more capture the lustfulness that is K-Lo.

***

save_the_rustbelt: Well, Jonah was editor of NROnline (as K-Lo is now--though there's spillover). Rich Lowry is, and has been, editor of dead tree.

Not that I can nitpick too much: I KNOW the progression, and yet I still snarked what I did, just 'cause ... well, for anyone who's witnessed K-Lo's Muskrat Love for Romney from way back, I think I don't need to explain. The rest won't get it, and let's just say I think you're lucky.

Trooper York said...

Bystander: I don’t understand this speech. He seems to be flipping and flopping like a fish out of water.
Reporter: Well he does live under the water and only came out of his cocoon to run for President.
Bystander with 2 rare clumbers: Oh too bad. A flip-flopper is an immediate softie.
K-Lo: Oh I don’t know I bet I can get him to stand firm.
Bystander with 2 rare clumbers: Don’t flatter yourself honey. You couldn’t do it with a bucket full of Viagra and Mariah Carey’s cootch.
Reporter: Well I hear that’s kind of fishy.
Bystander with 2 rare clumbers: So, it should be right up his alley. Or her alley. Whatever. Hey do you want to hear about my trip to Scottsdale. I just pinched…….
Bystander, Reporter, Surrounding crowd; NO!
(Prince Namor the Sub-Mariner comics, 2007)

rcocean said...

Skimming through the NR editorial it just reinforced why I stopped subscribing or even reading the magazine. Who else but an out of touch east coast elite, would say this about McCain:

"There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it."

Incredible. IOW, despite supporting Amnesty and Open Borders, sucking up to the MSM, attacking the Religious Right, the Gang of 14, opposing Tax Cuts, and constant disloyalty and the undercutting of Bush - NR would have supported him if had run a better campaign.

Invisible Man said...

I'm so confused. As a liberal, I'm of the mind that Mitt Romney would probably be the least pernicious of all of the Republican candidates but that's what confuses me. The guy has few conceivable principles and most of his moves to the right seem to be made of only political expediency. I could be wrong, but if there was ever potential for a David Souter-type conversion for a Republican President, Mittens would be it. I think that the National Review is getting conned.

rhhardin said...

He needs a Cretan as a running mate.

Charlie S, said...

Annie in third grade: Chris was mean; I don't want ANYBODY to talk to him!!!

The good professor as adult: You are a banned comenter. No one should respond to Christopher.

Some difference, eh?!

Haha

jeweejewish said...

Romney?

It's incredibly simple. The Republican establishment has decided to get behind him, with the same cynicism they got behind Bush, and for the same reason -- because he's the empty suit candidate they can run as a puppet.

In that sense, he's the obvious heir to George Allen, who would have been the empty suit candidate until the macaca thing intervened.

Mitt Romney: The Official Chauncy Gardiner Candidate of the Republican Establishment.

You guys are really slow on the uptake...

Trooper York said...

Bystander: Who is that crazy man ranting at the Merman with the really red face and the spittle flying out of his mouth? He’s cursing and screaming like a lunatic.
Reporter: Why I thing that’s Lawrence O'Donnell. You know the big time columnist and talking head. I think he wrote for the West Wing. He really hates Merman.
Bystander: Why does he hate them so much? They don’t seem like such a terrible bunch of people.
K-Lo: Well he has to prove how liberal he is by hating people and calling them names because of stuff their ancestors did many years ago.
Bystander: Well that seems silly. And not very nice. Why can’t he judge him on his merits without worrying about what his grandfather might have done?
Mike the Irish Cop: Cause he’s shanty Irish to be sure, and has had a hate for the fish people ever since grammar school when he had to be eating fish sticks on a Friday.
Bystander with 2 rare clumbers: I think he’s fooling himself. He just likes him, he thinks he pretty….hey do you want to hear about the time I was in Boston and I met this journalist in the park and…..
Bystander, Reporter, Surrounding crowd; NO!
(Prince Namor the Sub-Mariner comics, 2007)

EnigmatiCore said...

"His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same"

Sure they are, today.

Which is a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.

But what will they be tomorrow?

Could be a bad thing, or a good thing, depending on your perspective.

rcocean said...

To me the most interesting lie, Trooper, that I would submit to you that you should answer, is, you make a lying claim
. . . That's a lie, Trooper! Keep lying, it's all you do! . . . Lies! . . . Which is not in Trooper's post, 'cause it's a lie! . . . That's a lie! It's another lie! That's a lie! Absolute lie! You lie in that post endlessly! . . . You lie about documents endlessly! . . . You're just lying about it! And you lied about me! You lied about it as long as you could until the New York Times found the wording of what was on the citation that you as a lying writer refused to put in your pack of lies! . . . Disgusting, lying post! . . . You have no standards, Trooper, as an author, and you know it! It's a pack of lies! You are unfit to blog! . . . He just lied to you! He spews out this filth! Point to his name on the report, you liar! Point to his name, you liar! . . . You just spew lies! . . . I just hate the lies of Trooper. I hate lies. It's not an argument; they're proven lies. . . . Trooper's a liar, he's been a liar for 35 years about this, and he's found other liars [unintelligible]. . . . They lied! . . . They're lying somewhere! . . . Lies! Just tell me the initials, you liar! Creepy liar! . . . You are a liar who makes things up! . . . You want the lies! That's how you make your living, on lies!

Larry O'Donnell responds to Trooper.

Trooper York said...

That’s really cool rc. It’s almost like you channeled him like one of those psychic guys. Do you think you can channel Fred Thompson? I am pretty sure he’s dead but I would like to see what he thinks about the race.

Revenant said...

I would vote for Giuliani or Thompson, if they were nominated. If Huckabee was I'd probably vote for Hillary.

If Romney's the candidate I'll probably just vote for Frank Zappa again. It isn't like my vote counts here in California anyway.

Revenant said...

I could be wrong, but if there was ever potential for a David Souter-type conversion for a Republican President, Mittens would be it. I think that the National Review is getting conned.

I don't think so. The problem they face is that the other leading Republicans -- Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee -- all have beliefs that are extremely hostile to National Review conservatism. Romney seems like a Republican Clinton, willing to do and say whatever it takes to get elected. Probably they figure it is better to have a President they can pressure into doing things their way, than a President with actual beliefs that NR is unlikely to change.

rcocean said...

Trooper, Fred's not dead - just asleep. Running for President bores him.

reader_iam said...

If Huckabee was I'd probably vote for Hillary.

Good Lord.

Simon said...

Invisible Man said...
"I could be wrong, but if there was ever potential for a David Souter-type conversion...."

I really don't think there was any conversion with Souter. I think his record was simply misapprehended by those who pushed his nomination.

"Mittens would be it."

And thus a nickname is born...

Revenant said...
"If Huckabee was I'd probably vote for Hillary."

I'm not sure I could go that far - there's an awful lot at stake - but I would not be happy at all with Huck as the candidate from what we know at this juncture. I could support Mittens, although he wouldn't be my first choice, and NR makes a reasonably strong case for him.

jimbino said...

I have no idea what Christopher said to get banned, but I'd like to see a parallel universe containing all the comments banned by the blogger hosts. I'm sure it would be better reading.

Trooper York said...

Ok. I thought it was because Jeri killed him. In a fun way of course. Where is she by the way. She has been keeping the girls...I mean she has been kept under wraps for a while now. I think Fred should roll up in a pick up in his appearances in Iowa. And it's cold enough that the headlights will be out!

spudchuker said...

Mitt probably would be a worthy President because he is a good manager and he has shown that he can work with Democrats to forge a common goal. I grew up in a sea of Mormons and was resentful of them in my youth, butI must admit they are almost always extremely industrious and patriotic. That said I know his chance is nil.
It seems to me that Clinton-Huckabee contest would be the worst of all possibile outcomes and fuel terrible feelings on the loosing side (Rebublican for sure).Gulliani (sp?), Richadson, McCain and Biden have the stuff that we need.

christopher said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Revenant said...

I'm not sure I could go that far - there's an awful lot at stake - but I would not be happy at all with Huck as the candidate from what we know at this juncture.

Nominating Huckabee would signal that the Republican Party, when push comes to shove, only actually cares about social conservative dogma and is willing to throw away everything else in order to secure a socially conservative candidate. I really don't see any reason why I should put up with that.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paddy O. said...

I really don't see any reason why I should put up with that.

I really don't see any reason why I should put up with that either, and I'm a social conservative.

Huckabee is what he thinks people want to hear. He's the Arianna Huffington of political candidates, staking out a segment of the population and pandering them to victory.

I don't know if I would vote for Hillary instead of him, but I might vote for Obama instead of him.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"I really don't see any reason why I should put up with that."

Sure, but you don't have the commitments that I have vis-a-vis the Supreme Court and the judiciary.

hdhouse said...

ol' Mitt is certainly the dream candidate. Democrat's dream candidate...ohboy ohboy...now have him choose Rudy for a running mate....

God how I miss the screamin'

Simon said...

Paddy O. said...
"I don't know if I would vote for Hillary instead of him, but I might vote for Obama instead of him."

In the name of all that's good and not braindead, why would anyone (least of all a social conservative) vote for Obama?

reader_iam said...

Just curious, Revenant:

Did you follow my link?

Did anyone?

Simon said...

I did. ;)

Paddy O. said...

In the name of all that's good and not braindead, why would anyone (least of all a social conservative) vote for Obama?

Well, I was watching Oprah the other day and apparently she's wanting everyone to vote for him.

We all know that Oprah's vortex swallows up all others.

I would have no choice but to submit.

EnigmatiCore said...

"I wonder by what?"

Maybe she's getting some, which is something that obviously never takes up your time.

reader_iam said...

Does a "social conservative" category truly and significantly exist anymore apart from religiosity?

Does a "religious right" category truly and significantly exist anymore apart from "fundamentalism"?

Does anyone even ask these questions anymore?

reader_iam said...

The Republican Party, as a result of years and years of activism, is preparing, for its part, to, in effect, answer those questions "No."

***

Don't be silly. Of course I can pose the similar for the other contexts, and for others.

Revenant said...

Sure, but you don't have the commitments that I have vis-a-vis the Supreme Court and the judiciary.

Neither does Huckabee. :)

former law student said...

In the name of all that's good and not braindead, why would anyone (least of all a social conservative) vote for Obama?
Obama is the candidate of hope. Obama is shiny and new. Obama is a self-made man, a Clinton who keeps his pecker in his pants, a Carter without the sanctimoniousness.

""More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws.""

At first I thought this might be damning with faint praise (Bush's virtues: always zips fly; can tie own shoes), but then I realized Romney (like baby bush was) is the Establishment candidate: not a Noo Yawk dago like Giuliani, not a Jesus freak like Huckabee, and not a free and independent spirit like McCain or Thompson or Paul. Remember, Mitt grew up the son of the CEO of a car and appliance company, later the Governor of Michigan -- back when Michigan was prosperous and had a future. Mitt grew up knowing how to play the Organization Man game and win, and the Organization Man-in-Politics game and win. He is more than palatable to the powers-that-be.

Roger said...

The National Review is not what it used it to be...Have no regrets about dropping my subscription long ago. Still Romney is preferable to any of the empty suited Democratic candidates--but that sets the bar pretty low.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"Neither does Huckabee."

Perhaps not, just because in an election neither candidate is "with the program" as they say, that doesn't mean the candidates are in equipoise. Perhaps Huckabee would appoint, you know, John Cornyn or some generic political conservative pick, rather than the kind of nominee I want (Diane Sykes, Steve Calabresi, Sai Prakash, etc.; you all know the list by now) but we can make educated guesses about who Hillary would appoint, and those picks are much worse for someone who views matters my way. Elections are about picking the lesser evil, and if neither candidate is promising nominees who'll do the job right, you pick the one who'll do less damage.

Simon said...

former law student said...
"Obama is the candidate of hope. Obama is shiny and new. Obama is a self-made man, a Clinton who keeps his pecker in his pants, a Carter without the sanctimoniousness."

I'm going to assume that's sarcasm.

john said...

Cocaine Princess -

You'd think that with all the law types around here that someone would answer your question. So as a non-lawyer, let me try:

First, do you pay his fees in drug proceeds? Does he have a goatee? Does he still wax his moustache? Any yes answers: keep the relationship professional.

Now that we got that put away, maybe you can help with my Christmas shopping, you know, for those really hard to buy for friends:

Do you sell spoons? (A small hole in the handle would be nice for use as a tree ornamant.) Do you take American Express? Whats the minimum order for free shipping?

Regards, and Happy Holidays.

Revenant said...

Perhaps not, just because in an election neither candidate is "with the program" as they say, that doesn't mean the candidates are in equipoise.

Well, personally I think the Republican edge in justices is that they are more likely to appoint constructionists, or at least quasi-constructionists, than the Democrats are.

I don't think Huckabee is. He is clearly a results-oriented politician and not at all concerned with constitutional issues. I think he is likely to appoint activist right-wing judges (e.g. ones who will continue carving away at first and fourth amendment protections in drug and obscenity cases), which I do not regard as especially preferable to activist left-wing judges.

hdhouse said...

HOLD ON! I just reread the thread topic sentence. BUSH'S Virtues.

ohmygod

talk about a 0-0 tie.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"I think [Huck] is likely to appoint activist right-wing judges ... which I do not regard as especially preferable to activist left-wing judges."

Not especially so, I entirely agree, but given the choice between the one or the other - assuredly that's what we'll get from Hillary - I'd take the former in a pinch.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

I think we can agree to disagree on which kind of activist is less irritating. :)

Another factor, for me, is that the judges being *replaced* in the next four years will be ones that I consider to be activist and left-wing. Replacing them with more of the same won't change anything.